E-PRTR informal review 2015 – country report Lithuania
2015 E-PRTR country report – Lithuania
Created: 31-08-2015 by ETC/ACM
Content
1)
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
2)
Country profile ............................................................................................................................ 2
3)
Top polluters ............................................................................................................................... 5
4)
Comparison with other countries ............................................................................................... 6
5)
Comparison with other national reporting obligations............................................................... 9
Ratio of E-PRTR releases compared to the total ETS verified emissions on country level.............. 9
Comparison of E-PRTR releases with CLRTAP national totals ......................................................... 9
6)
Findings 2015 to be addressed by the country ......................................................................... 10
7)
Summary of provided comments by Lithuania 2013-2014 ....................................................... 10
1) Introduction
The E-PRTR Word country reports are produced as part of the annual EEA informal E-PRTR review
with the support of the ETC/ACM (Partner UBA-V)1. The purpose of the informal review is to provide
countries with feedback on their E-PRTR data in order to assist them to improve the data.
This report is based on the E-PRTR database of 27th May 20152. Summary information including
potential outliers is provided in sections 2 to 4 (see Figures 1 – 9). Comparisons of E-PRTR releases to
air with EU ETS and CLRTAP/UNFCCC data are included in section 5 (see Figure 10 and Figure 11).
You are invited to check all findings for your country and to provide feedback/comments to EEA
within section 6 (Table 2). All written feedback on informal review results provided by the country to
EEA from 2013 to 2014 is listed in section 7.
Additional data analyses for each country can be found in the Excel country file available for each
country as part of this review of E-PRTR data.
1
http://acm.eionet.europa.eu/
2
The database “eprtr_v7” can be downloaded at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/member-statesreporting-art-7-under-the-european-pollutant-release-and-transfer-register-e-prtr-regulation-10
In individual cases the results might slightly differ from the information provided in “Summary report on 2013 E-PRTR data”
while this report is based on the April data “Full_Database_2015_04_17.mdb” but some countries resubmitted E-PRTR data
between end of April and end of May.
1
E-PRTR informal review 2015 – country report Lithuania
2) Country profile
In the figures below the following changes in E-PRTR data reported by Lithuania for the years 2013
compared to 2012 are illustrated:








Number of facilities
Number of facilities per reporting medium (release to air, release to water, release to land,
transfer in water, transfer of waste)
Waste quantity
Number of releases by media
Elected indicators (inhabitants, GDP, area)
Number of pollutants
Changes in quantity and number of releases to air, water and land
Changes in quantity and number of waste transfers
The findings are provided below the particular figures. You are invited to provide feedback for your
country in section 6.
Number of facilities reporting
for 2012 only
39
0
36
Release in Transfer in
water
water
0
2
for both years
Air
4
2013
8
99
2012
9
99
9
23
77
88
Number of facilities reporting by media
Land
Waste
for 2013 only
2012
2013
No reported releases to land might indicate incomplete reporting under E-PRTR and should be
checked by Lithuania.
2
E-PRTR informal review 2015 – country report Lithuania
Number of releases by media
Hazardous
Air
Non hazardous
2012
0
0
4
2
26
28
0.02
58
63
116
101
0.06
0.06
0.07
Waste quantity (Mt)
Release in Transfer in
water
water
Land
2012
2013
Waste
2013
Number of pollutants
15
9
No. of
facilities
Inhabitants
2012
GDP
2013
Area
Air
Release in
water
2012
Transfer in
water
0
0
1
1
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
10
13
1.1%
1.1%
Share in total E-PRTR
Land
2013
Figure 1 Overall statistics - comparison of 2013 E-PRTR data with 2012 E-PRTR data
3
E-PRTR informal review 2015 – country report Lithuania
Change in quantity and number of releases to air under E-PRTR for 2013
(2012=100%)
100%
500%
50%
0%
-50%
Pb
Hg
Cd
HCL
PCDD/PCDF
Quantity of releases
NH3
PM10
NMVOC
SO2
NOx
CH4
CO2
-100%
Number of releases
Note: The most frequently reported air pollutants have been selected for the above graph. They are also
reported under different directives and protocols (Kyoto Protocol, NECD, CLRTAP – including Gothenburg
Protocol, Heavy Metal Protocol and POPs Protocol). The pollutants are grouped from left to right in the
following way: greenhouse gases, air pollutants, heavy metals and POPs.
Figure 2 Comparison of quantities and number of releases to air of E-PRTR 2013 with E-PRTR 2012
The number of releases of Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) to air increased by
500% from 2012 to 2013. This could indicate an outlier and should be checked by Lithuania.
Change in quantity and number of releases to water under E-PRTR for 2013
(2012=100%)
150%
100%
50%
0%
-50%
-100%
Quantity of releases
Pb
Hg
Cd
Total OC
Total P
Total N
-150%
Number of releases
Note: The typical wastewater parameters and main heavy metals have been selected for the above graph. The
pollutants are grouped from left to right in the following way: typical wastewater parameters and heavy
metals.
Figure 3 Comparison of quantities and number of releases to water of E-PRTR 2013 with E-PRTR 2012
Releases of Mercury and compounds (as Hg) to water disappeared between 2012 and 2013.
Furthermore, the quantity of released total nitrogen to water increased by 121% between 2012 and
2013. This could indicate outliers in the E-PRTR data and should be checked by Lithuania.
4
E-PRTR informal review 2015 – country report Lithuania
Change in waste quantities and number of waste transfers under E-PRTR for 2013
(2012=100%)
200%
50%
295%
100%
4526%
150%
0%
-50%
Quantity of transfers
Non-HW
for recovery
Non-HW
for disposal
HW outside country
for recovery
HW outside country
for disposal
HW inside country
for recovery
HW inside country
for disposal
-100%
Number of transfers
Figure 4 Comparison of quantities and number of waste transfers of E-PRTR 2013 with E-PRTR 2012
From 2012 to 2013 the quantities of hazardous waste transferred inside the country destined for
disposal and hazardous waste transferred inside the country destined for recovery increased by
4 529% and 295%, respectively. This could indicate outliers in the E-PRTR data and should be checked
by Lithuania.
3) Top polluters
The below section provides an indication of potential outliers. You are invited to check the below lists
of top polluters for data accuracy (potential errors), completeness and consistency.
NEW: The ranking of top polluters in 2013 E-PRTR data is compared with the previous year’s ranking.
If there is a significant difference, the respective facility is highlighted and countries should check it
and provide comments in section 6.
 Facilities responsible for ≥ 90% of all countries E-PRTR release for a certain pollutant into air,
water and land and transfer in water for which > 3 E-PRTR release reports were reported
There were no findings related to Lithuania.
 Facilities responsible for ≥ 90% of all countries E-PRTR release for a certain pollutant into air,
water and land and transfer in water for which ≤ 3 E-PRTR release reports were reported
There were no findings related to Lithuania.
5
E-PRTR informal review 2015 – country report Lithuania
 Facilities among the top five (top ten for SOx and NOx) E-PRTR polluters of all countries for CO2,
CH4, N2O, SOx, NOx, NMVOC, NH3 and PM10 (released to air); Cd, Pb and Hg (released into air,
water or land or transferred in water)
Table 1 List of Lithuanian facilities included in TOP 5 or TOP 10 (for SO x and NOx) E-PRTR 2013 polluters of all
countries for releases to air, water or land or transfers in water
National ID
Facility name
Activity
Medium
Pollutant
000000019
Akcinė bendrovė
"ORLEN Lietuva"
1.(a)
Air
Non-methane
volatile organic
compounds
(NMVOC)
Quantity of
releases/tran
sfers in t/year
9 860
Rank 2013
(2012)
1 (2)
All
countries
share3 [%]
2.3%
 Facilities among the top three polluting facilities for the whole E-PRTR in terms of off-site
transfers of waste per waste type and type of treatment
There were no findings related to Lithuania.
4) Comparison with other countries
E-PRTR covers 32 countries (EU-274; plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Serbia) and
data for the reporting years 2007 to 2013. For 2013, 32 countries submitted E-PRTR data. The total
number of E-PRTR facilities reported for the year 2013 amounted to 32,194. This represents an
increase of about 1.8 % in the total number of facilities for all countries compared to 2012.
The figures below illustrate Lithuania’s E-PRTR reporting regarding the number of pollutants and
waste quantities compared to other countries.
You should check for any possible completeness or consistency issues for your country arising from
the following graphs.
3
The all countries share is calculated as a facility’s release or transfer quantity in kg/year for a pollutant per medium,
activity and reporting year divided by the total of E-PRTR facilities’ releases or transfer quantities in kg/year for this
pollutant for the specific medium, activity and reporting year.
4
From reporting year 2014, Croatia will also be covered by the reporting obligation and the coverage will therefore be
extended to 33 countries.
6
E-PRTR informal review 2015 – country report Lithuania
Number of E-PRTR pollutants reported to air for 2013
50
40
30
20
10
0
UK FR BE ES DE IT NL PL GR NO CZ SE PT FI SK CH HU SI AT RO DK IE EE BG LT CY LV LU MT IS RS LI
Figure 5 Number of E-PRTR pollutants reported to air for 2013
Number of E-PRTR pollutants reported to water for 2013
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
IT FR ES UK DE BE CZ PT PL NL SE NO AT SK IE FI RO CH RS BG HU SI GR DK LV MT EE IS LT LU CY LI
Figure 6 Number of E-PRTR pollutants reported to water for 2013
Number of E-PRTR pollutants reported to land for 2013
10
8
6
4
2
0
FR DE SK BG AT GR PL BE CH CY CZ DK EE ES FI HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MT NL NO PT RO RS SE SI UK
Figure 7 Number of E-PRTR pollutants reported to land for 2013
No reported releases to land might indicate incomplete reporting under E-PRTR and should be
checked by Lithuania.
7
E-PRTR informal review 2015 – country report Lithuania
Quantities of transfers of hazardous waste (Mt) reported for 2013
25
20
15
10
5
0
NL DE IT UK FR ES BE EE FI NO PL SE CH AT DK CZ PT RO HU IE SK BG RS GR LU SI LT IS LV LI MT CY
Figure 8 Quantities of transfers of hazardous waste (Mt) reported for 2013
Quantities of transfers of non-hazardous waste (Mt) reported for 2013
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
UK DE PL ES IT FR NL BE BG FI RO SE IE DK CZ PT AT GR HU SK CH NO SI LU EE RS LV LT IS CY MT LI
Figure 9 Quantities of transfers of non-hazardous waste (Mt) reported for 2013
8
E-PRTR informal review 2015 – country report Lithuania
5) Comparison with other national reporting obligations
Ratio of E-PRTR releases compared to the total ETS verified emissions on country level
Share of CO2 releases in total ETS verified emissions for 2013
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
SE FI PT FR NL MT UK CY BE EE CZ DE GR IS HU IE NO BG SI RO PL IT LU SK ES LV DK AT LT
CO2
CO2 excl. Biomass
Figure 10 Ratio of E-PRTR releases compared to the total ETS verified emissions on country level
Lithuania does not report CO2 emissions excluding biomass. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the
consistency of the CO2 reporting under E-PRTR with the EU ETS reporting without receiving additional
explanatory information from the country. The ratio between the total CO2 emissions reported under
E-PRTR to the emissions reported under the EU ETS (36%) seems to indicate incomplete reporting of
CO2 emissions under E-PRTR.
Comparison of E-PRTR releases with CLRTAP national totals
Share of E-PRTR in national totals reported under CLRTAP for 2013
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MAP
PCBs
POPs
HCB
PAH
PCDD+PCDF
Zn
Ni
Hg
Pb
Cu
Cr
Cd
As
NMVOC
PM10
SOX
NOX
CO
NH3
#NV
HM
100%
Note: E-PRTR releases of heavy metals (HM), Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and main air pollutants
(MAP) were compared with CLRTAP data. In 2015, there has been no official submission of greenhouse gas data
to the UNFCCC Secretariat so far. Therefore, the comparison of E-PRTR releases with UNFCCC totals could not be
carried out.
Figure 11 Comparison of E-PRTR releases with CLRTAP national totals
Lithuania did not report the following pollutants under E-PRTR: Arsenic and compounds (as As),
Cadmium and compounds (as Cd), Chromium and compounds (as Cr), Hexachlorobenzene (HCB),
9
E-PRTR informal review 2015 – country report Lithuania
Mercury and compounds (as Hg), Nickel and compounds (as Ni), PCDD + PCDF (dioxins + furans) (as
Teq), Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
6) Findings 2015 to be addressed by the country
The following findings/potential problems for Lithuania have been identified during the E-PRTR
informal review 2015. Please provide your feedback to the EEA (eprtr@eea.europa.eu) and the
ETC/ACM (etcacm-eprtr@umweltbundesamt.at) by adding your comments to Table 2 and send the
filled table as separate word file per email. This can be done easily by copying the table into a
separate word document labelled with your country´s abbreviation. Feel free to add rows to the
table as needed.
Table 2 Summary of findings and potential outliers identified during 2015 informal review
Issue
Finding
Completeness
(land)
Potential outliers
(air)
No reported releases to land.
Potential outliers
(water)
Potential outliers
(waste)
Top polluters
Comparison with
ETS
Comments by country
The number of releases of Nonmethane volatile organic compounds
(NMVOC) to air increased by 500%
from 2012 to 2013.
Releases of Mercury and compounds
(as Hg) to water disappeared
between
2012
and
2013.
Furthermore, the quantity of
released total nitrogen to water
increased by 121% between 2012
and 2013.
From 2012 to 2013 the quantities of
hazardous waste transferred inside
the country destined for disposal
and hazardous waste transferred
inside the country destined for
recovery increased by 4 529% and
295%, respectively.
One facility among the top E-PRTR
polluters of all countries (see Table
1).
The ratio between the total CO2
emissions reported under E-PRTR to
the emissions reported under the EU
ETS (36%) seems to indicate
incomplete reporting of CO2
emissions under E-PRTR.
7) Summary of provided comments by Lithuania 2013-2014
Lithuania did not provide feedback on the E-PRTR informal review results 2013 to 2014.
10